Abstract

The debate on differentiated autonomy, the attribution to some Regions of further forms and particular conditions of autonomy, is focused on the consequences it might have on territorial imbalances. In fact, differentiated autonomy highlights a contradiction of the constitutional reform of 2001. On the one hand, in art. 117, the uniformity of services is emphasized (essential levels to be guaranteed throughout the national territory); on the other hand, art. 119 identifies as the main form of financing of subnational governments “sharing of the tax revenue attributable to their territoryµ (instead of simple transfers from the State budget). Until now, as in the case of healthcare, this contradiction has been resolved in favor of uniformity of services, by designing financing models which boil down to a system of transfers from the State. Differentiated autonomy can mark a caesura in this framework giving much more weight to the different fiscal capacities of the Regions. It is a story that highlights the limits of the Title V reform which did not contribute to designing an orderly financing system for local authorities capable of keeping autonomy and responsibility together and, at the same time, made it more difficult to pursue national policies.